163 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

Welcome to the CommanderBond.net Forums, jboldman.

[Gri007]

Why couldn't Pearson have just wrote a biography on James Bond. The one we all know and love instead of making some story up about the secret service hiring Fleming to write books about there agent. The book is good and it answers a lot of qeustions, but it's just the fact that Bond was real and Fleming was hired to write stories about him. Surely Fleming must have been turning in his grave. And surely it's about time someone revised the book

[TortillaFactory]

You know, Gri, I have to agree with you - I'd love to see a "straight" biography of James Bond, without all the ponderous background of how the author "discovered" that he was "real." The whole idea is preposterous, of course, since the fact that the events in the books really happened would eliminate the possibility that Bond was a work of fiction.

I also felt, as I said somewhat more long-windedly in my previous post, that Pearson didn't really "get" the character much at all. Fleming may have only been an amateur psychologist, and would probably cringe at the title, but his characters are consistent and their behavior makes sense. Somehow I cannot picture young Bond doing the things that Pearson has him do.

The bit about M was just silly, IMHO, and didn't really fit in at all.

[Gri007]

Well Tortilla, neither can I. You've only got to have a look at Charlie Higson's young Bond. There is no way that character that Higson has wrote is going to do half of the stuff has Pearson/Fleming has wrote. Pearson was thrying to 'blend' his character of Bond into Flemings.

Higsons young Bond is totally different. It is obviously aimed at kids.

[TortillaFactory]

Higson's Bond is definitely the "lite" version - and so, we're forever doomed to just imagine what Bond's childhood must have been like. Which, I suppose, is best in the end.

I think Higson may actually understand the character better than Pearson did, but he's afraid to go too far. (As any author would be, except perhaps for the likes of Orson Scott Card, who's used to writing about kids as tiny adults.) I don't feel that Pearson did a very good job of blending with Fleming, actually, no matter how hard he tried. I cannot see Bond becoming the pet of a 40-something French prostitute. I'm sorry...it's just....not happening. It goes completely against his attitude towards women and his habit of calling them "girls" no matter how old they are. Four stars for effort, Pearson, and two for execution.

[Gri007]

Pearson says James has got a brother called Henry. Perhaps in the future Higson would probably explore Bonds brother Henry. They could be certain parts that may come into the young bond novels that appear in Pearson's book.

i.e Higson would probably explore more into depth the death of Bond's parents. Things that are suitable for kids of course. Nothing like sleeping with prostistues etc, etc, etc.

[SecretAgent007]

I bought this book when it was originally published and just re-read it last year. I can't say I was as enthused with it as the rest of you. It would have been a lot more fun if it were a straight bio. The premise is so ridiculous that I probably won't read it again. Someone should re-edit it to only include the stories and cut out the interviews with "real Bond". It would be a better book.

[David Schofield]

Pearson says James has got a brother called Henry.  Perhaps in the future  Higson would probably explore Bonds brother Henry.  They could be certain parts that may come into the young bond novels that appear in Pearson's book. 

i.e Higson would probably explore more into depth the death of Bond's parents.  Things that are suitable for kids of course.  Nothing like sleeping with prostistues etc, etc, etc.

No, Pearson's Bond and Higson's Bond are different people. Higson's Bond is still a boy, finding holiday's in the Highlands exiting : Pearson's is mixing with the rich Hello magazine-of-today set and heading for Paris and the south of France.

Figure for yourself which is Fleming's Bond.

[Gri007]

Exactly Schofelid. Higson's Bond isn't Flemings at all nor Pearsons. It is a shame that Higson won't go into depth of Bonds early life, as Pearson did. But as Secret Agent 007 mentioned, pearson should have just told the stories instead of cuting to the 'real' bond

[boeserzwilling]

I believe Pearson had to give James Bond a brother because of "003 1/2 The Adventures of James Bond Junior". That book was an official Glidrose publication when it came out in 1968 (only 5 years before the Pearson book). If James Bond had a nephew he needed a sister or brother.

Today, Ian Fleming Publications is ignoring both books.

[zencat]

I believe Pearson had to give James Bond a brother because of "003 1/2 The Adventures of James Bond Junior". That book was an official Glidrose publication when it came out in 1968 (only 5 years before the Pearson book). If James Bond had a nephew he needed a sister or brother.

Good point. I never thought about that before but, of course, that's make sense.

[David Schofield]

Exactly Schofelid.  Higson's Bond isn't Flemings at all nor Pearsons.  It is a shame that Higson won't go into depth of Bonds early life, as Pearson did.  But as Secret Agent 007 mentioned, pearson should have just told the stories instead of cuting to the 'real'   bond

I certainly agree that Pearson botched things VERY badly by claiming Fleming's Bond wasn't the real Bond... but I think many of Pearson's additions - where they don't contradict Fleming - were spot on.

[zencat]

I don't think Pearson ever said his Bond wasn't the Bond of the Fleming books. I know he said Moonraker was a manufactured story (for security reasons), but the Bond of Pearson is still supposed to be the same man as in the Fleming books.

[David Schofield]

I don't think Pearson ever said his Bond wasn't the Bond of the Fleming books. I know he said Moonraker was a manufactured story (for security reasons), but the Bond of Pearson is still supposed to be the same man as in the Fleming books.

True, Pearson claims Fleming was the real James Bond's biographer, not his creator. I think it is the element of depriving Fleming of the fact that he really did create Bond - and hence everything that we now enjoy - that annoys me, Zen. Trivial, perhaps, I know.

[Donovan Mayne-Nicholls]

I was always curious why the book held joint copyright by the author and Glidrose and wasn't issued by Cape but in view of The Moneypenny Diaries, could it be that Glidrose authorised the book at the last minute?

[Bond111]

Hmm I happen to be reading this at the moment. Pretty fascinating read, although I was disappointed to find out that Pearson wrote the book as if the Fleming books and the movies were real.

[zencat]

I was always curious why the book held joint copyright by the author and Glidrose and wasn't issued by Cape but in view of The Moneypenny Diaries, could it be that Glidrose authorised the book at the last minute?

I've always wondered that same thing.

[Panther]

I managed to track the book down on Abe after discovering it on CBn and am so pleased I did! I have just recently re-read all the Fleming books - and loved them, of course - and was delighted to find a way of re-entering Bond's world, if only for a book. I found the premise clever, the execution neat, and certain sections laugh-out-loud funny. And if I did identify areas where he diverges from Fleming, that didn't bother me. It is a fictional world, after all - if a wonderfully enthralling one.

I'm going to order The Moneypenny Diaries immediately.

And by the way? Does anyone know if Pearson is still around and writing?

Thank you to CBn for all the great Bond and Fleming lore. I can see that this may well become a new way to feed the fascination.

[Qwerty]

Welcome to CBn, Panther!

I'm currently re-reading this book right now, and it's definitely a good one.

[Brisco]

And by the way? Does anyone know if Pearson is still around and writing?

Pearson wrote the intro to John Griswold's James Bond "Annotated Chronology" just this year.

Brisco

[zencat]

I managed to track the book down on Abe after discovering it on CBn and am so pleased I did! I have just recently re-read all the Fleming books - and loved them, of course - and was delighted to find a way of re-entering Bond's world, if only for a book. I found the premise clever, the execution neat, and certain sections laugh-out-loud funny. And if I did identify areas where he diverges from Fleming, that didn't bother me. It is a fictional world, after all - if a wonderfully enthralling one.

I'm going to order The Moneypenny Diaries immediately.

And by the way? Does anyone know if Pearson is still around and writing?

Thank you to CBn for all the great Bond and Fleming lore. I can see that this may well become a new way to feed the fascination.

Thanks Panther. Welcome to CBn.

[Emma]

This is one of my all time favourite books. Can anyone tell me how similar the information in the bio is to the bits and pieces Flemming provided on the character in Bond books?

[David Schofield]

This is one of my all time favourite books. Can anyone tell me how similar the information in the bio is to the bits and pieces Flemming provided on the character in Bond books?

Well, you've got the instant anomaly of Bond's date of birth, the fact that he has a brother, spent two years (not two halves) at Eton, that Moonraker did not really happen, that a lot of the dates given conflict with Fleming (I know, Spy, this doesn't matter...), that Bond himself is a real person...

Yes, Pearson's book is great fun. However, I do not consider it canon and it sits in my collection as Bondian extras, soon to be joined by The Moneypenny Diaries.

[spynovelfan]

How is it not canon? It was commissioned by Fleming's estate, just as Amis, Benson, Gardner, Higson and Westbrook were. On what basis are you deciding what's canon? Whether or not they were faithful to Fleming?

Gardner ain't canon either, then.

[David Schofield]

How is it not canon? It was commissioned by Fleming's estate, just as Amis, Benson, Gardner, Higson and Westbrook were. On what basis are you deciding what's canon? Whether or not they were faithful to Fleming?

Gardner ain't canon either, then.

Ok, Spy, here we go again!

Sure, canon "canon" is Fleming only. Bond "died" with The Man with the Golden Gun". (Some of the writing since then has been crap so why go any further anyway?)

Broader canon to me includes anything authorized by Glidrose/IFP that does not IMPLICITY contradict Fleming. That is, I am prepared to give Higson and Benson the benefit of the doubt on "two halves" depending on how Higson resolves matters. (And here's a new one for you, Spy on the year of birth issue: Fleming says Bond lost his virginity at 16 in Paris and that he was born in 1924 - not sure how the Germans would have felt about a 16 year old Brit asking a taxi driver to take him to Harry's Bar in 1940/41, do you?!).

However, anything that TOTALLY contradicts Fleming - Moonraker not taking place, Bond not being Bond's surname - I think goes too far and should be excluded. And yes, Spy, I am accepting your point that Bond doesn't age and is the same late 30s in CR as the last Benson

Edited by David Schofield, 24 October 2005 - 02:25 PM.

[spynovelfan]

So basically anything that contradicts Fleming a *lot* in your book isn't canon? Well, okay - it's your system.

Fleming contradicts *himself* plenty, by the way.

For me, canon is Fleming and no-one else. We have no idea if Fleming would have approved of anything that his estate has published since his death.

Tough, but fair.

[David Schofield]

So basically anything that contradicts Fleming a *lot* in your book isn't canon? Well, okay  - it's your system.

Fleming contradicts *himself* plenty, by the way.

For me, canon is Fleming and no-one else. We have no idea if Fleming would have approved of anything that his estate has published since his death.

Tough, but fair.

As we both say, only Fleming is canon.

Just trying to give encouragement to the other buggers for trying, Spy. Lot of time wasted that, writing a James Bond novel (and no, thats not a dig at fan fiction0

[spynovelfan]

I wonder if CBN member YoungBondIsFabLeaveMeAlone is reading this as a guest and biting his fingernails at how he's going to resolve the terms at Eton problem to get into your canon.

[David Schofield]

I wonder if CBN member YoungBondIsFabLeaveMeAlone is reading this as a guest and biting his fingernails at how he's going to resolve the terms at Eton problem to get into your canon.

Well, he could always give up the Eton thing after Blood Fever (hey what a great title for a book culminating in Bond shagging/or otherwise one of the Eton maids*), have YB3 start at Fettes...

Nah, Bond is English public school through and through, isn't he IFP!

[Emma]

[quote name='David Schofield' date='23 August 2005 - 18:37'][quote name='Gri007' date='14 August 2005 - 08:10']Pearson says James has got a brother called Henry.